RPG Horizon

OGL 1.2 Survey Response Guideline

The text of the OGL 1.2 can be found here.

The survey to provide feedback can be found here.

Please read this entire guideline, before beginning to answer questions.

Would you like to provide feedback on the content of the proposed OGL 1.2

Answer yes to this question.

Now that you've read the proposed OGL 1.2, what concerns of questions come

to mind for you?

In order of their appearance in the OGL 1.2, consider mentioning the following talking points in your own language.

The following is the full text of my response, please do not copy it as this will devalue both my and your response as it may appear as a form of "spam campaign" in whichever systems they use to filter responses.

The OGL 1.2 is worded as an explicit license between the 3rd party creator and WOTC. This was not the case for the OGL 1.0. This means that the license does not extend to 3rd party to 3rd party relations, as was the case with OGL 1.0 and it's open gaming content provisions. This effectively means that there is no mechanism by which Open Gaming Content as defined in the OGL 1.0 can be used or created through the OGL 1.2. This means that existing content created under OGL 1.0 as Open Gaming Content is not usable, and enters a licensing black whole where it can no longer be used at all by any other third party. It also contains no mechanism for creators using the OGL 1.2 to declare and create open gaming content for others to use. In this respect, I do not see how this is in anyway an actual "Open Gaming License" other than in the name you have assigned to it.

In addition, while the community has been asking for the inclusion of the term "irrevocable", this was desired to be placed into the OGL 1.0a, and to have this not be de-authorized. Including it in 1.2 does not calm any concerns of mine, especially as it is immediately redefined as "content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from this license" which is different to the normal meaning of irrevocable as "this license cannot be changed or terminated in any way by anyway".

In fact, that typical meaning of the word irrevocable is explicitly discarded by clause 9d, which gives WOTC the power to terminate the entire license if any part of it is found unenforceable. The OGL 1.0a had a provision under which if any part of the OGL 1.0a was found unenforceable only that part would be removed, not the entire license.

Ultimately, this is all because the OGL 1.0a was intended by it's creators (Ryan Dancey, Azora Law) to be an irrevocable license. All of the problems in the above paragraphs are created by your attempt to treat this as not the case, and "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a while providing no meaningful replacement mechanism for the rights and license access it conferred.

Separate from the issues relating to the OGL 1.0a and open gaming content, the morality clause at 6f is of particular concern to me. It essentially gives WOTC the power to, in its sole discretion, revoke this license from anyone. While it may seem that WOTC could be trusted to only use this power to revoke the license from those peddling racism and hatred, the inclusion of the word "obscene" is of particular concern to me. There are many places in the world where "obscene" is used to marginalize minorities. The existence of gay people was argued as inherently sexual and banned from being taught to children in my party of my own country until 2010 (kent, in the UK). This same kind of issue is seen in the backsliding of LGBT rights in the US, and transgender rights in the UK. While the current owners of WOTC may not consider gay and trans people as inherently obscene, I can feel no confidence that if this backsliding continues future owners of the license (be it future directors at Hasbro and WOTC, or if the rights to D&D are sold again as they were by TSR to WOTC) will continue to hold this opinion. In fact, it seems possible that the US may backslide to a point where there are legal provisions made against the LGBT community to the point where Hasbro may be forced to use its powers as outlined in this section to police LGBT friendly content. Not having this power provided within the license would enable creators to feel much safer using it.

Ultimately, hateful content does not have a history of selling well in the TTRPG scene. NuTSR, FATAL, and others are generally widely unsuccessful in staking a large foothold. I do not believe that this kind of content potentially being created under the OGL 1.2 poses a significant threat to WOTC or the D&D brand.

After reading the proposed OGL 1.2, how has your perception of the future

of Dungeons & Dragons changed compared to before reading OGL 1.2?

Answer this question honestly. They have phrased it as if to imply that your perception may have improved from the leaks of the 1.1 to the release of the 1.2. I would instead recommend responding to it as if it was asking how your perception of the future of Dungeons & Dragons has changed compared to before the leak of the 1.1.

For me, this perception is worse. If you answer "better" or "much better" you will not see the following question.

What would be needed to improve your perception of Dungeons & Dragons'

future?

Answer relating to the points you raised in question 1.

My answer was

Remedies to the issues raised in question 1 would go a long way to improving my perceptions on the future of D&D, but the only way I can see a bright and prosperous future continuing is if the OGL 1.0a remains an authorized license.

How would you rate your level of understanding and your satisfaction with

the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International?

Answer this honestly, but take the time to read through the license and human readable (non legalese) summary page.

I answered 5 to both understanding and satisfaction.

How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of

satisfaction with the content found in the SRD that will be released under Creative Commons?

Rate this honestly, but consider that the cc license is a purely textual license, and the ideas presented by the text are not copyrightable to begin with.

I answered 5 to my understanding, and 2 to my satisfaction.

Do you have any other comments about the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

International and/or the content that will be released under Creative Commons?

Provide an honest answer based on your understanding of the above. Consider raising the following concerns in your own words.

I responded with the following.

Much of the textual content present in the sections placed under the creative commons describe rules which are not something that can be copyrighted to begin with, and the textual releases are of limited use.

More concerning are the parts of the SRD which were not placed into the creative commons. Such as spell lists. This implies which that WOTC intends to defend its ownership over things such as the common names of spells such "fireball". These are widespread and used in many properties, and I would much prefer to see WOTC include these in their lists of creative commons content to calm fears over a return to the overly litigious days of TSR.

How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of

satisfaction with the Notice of Deauthorization?

Rate this honestly, considering the impacts of the deauthorization of the OGL 1.0a listed in the talking points for question 1.

I answered 5 to my understanding, and 1 to my satisfaction.

Do you have any other comments about the Notice of Deauthorization?

Consider raising the following talking points.

My response was as follows

Deauthorizing the OGL is an act of bad faith that ruins any trust I would personally be able to have in WOTC going forward. Wizards own FAQ on the OGL, which I read when understanding the implications of using the OGL 1.0a in my own works, explicitly stated that if "Wizards made a change you disagreed with" to the OGL, "you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version".

Deauthorizing the OGL essentially makes this advice, which was presented on your website for the better part of 20 years, a lie.

I do not believe it was a lie when it was written as I do not believe that, even if you continue using the language surrounding "deauthorizong the OGL", it is something you have the power to do.

Ryan Dancey, who spearheaded its creation, has confirmed this was never an intended power for WOTC to have in relation to the OGL. In addition to this Azora Law, the law firm that wrote the text of the OGL 1.0, have confirmed through the words of Lisa Stevens and Jim Butler (leaders on Dungeons & Dragons team at the time the OGL 1.0 was released) that this was never an intended power.

If you continue with this language, I fully expect it to be defeated in court as some third party publisher will attempt to release content still licensed under 1.0a, as provisioned for in the original OGL 1.0 in clauses 4 and 9, and they will win. Continuing to include this language seems to me to be acting in bad faith, and attempting to scare the D&D community away from considering this inevitability.

How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of

satisfaction with the types of content covered by the proposed OGL 1.2?

Rate this honestly, considering the significant change this makes to the types of content which can be placed under the OGL 1.2 compared with the OGL 1.0, as discussed in the talking points of question 1.

I answered 5 to my understanding, and 2 to my satisfaction.

How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of

satisfaction with the content ownership rights outlined in the proposed OGL 1.2?

Rate this honestly, considering the limitations and restrictions placed on those who use the OGL 1.2 to legally defend themselves from content theft or any potential bad faith dealing by WOTC as outlined in the talking points of question 1.

I answered 5 to my understanding, and 2 to my satisfaction.

Do you have any other comments about the types of content covered and/or

the content ownership rights outlined by the proposed OGL 1.2?

Consider reitterating the points raised in 1b, 3a, 9e and 9g in the talking points for question 1.

I answered the following:

In the FAQ for the OGL 1.0, it explicitly stated that video game content and software programs were an acceptable usage of the license. Removing this power from the license significantly harms anyone developing a game based upon the OGL 1.0. This has been done historically successfully a number of times.

In addition to this, while the license states repeatedly that "you own your content", being unable to seek injunctive relief, even in the event that a court agrees it is the case the WOTC stole content from a third party author, means that in effect a license back provision is present, but not explicitly spelled out. This lowers my trust that WOTC is acting in good faith with clauses 3a, 9e, and 9g significantly.

How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of

satisfaction with the "You Control Your Content" section?

Rate this honestly, considering the limitations placed on existing OGL 1.0a content which will have not been separately licensed prior as is permitted by 5b, as no such requirement existed for Open Gaming Content under the OGL 1.0.

I answered 5 to my understanding, and 3 to my satisfaction.

How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of

satisfaction with the "Warranties And Disclaimers" section?

Rate this honestly, considering the implications of the morality clause present in 6f, and the impacts this may have going forward.

I answered 5 to my understanding, an 1 to my satisfaction.

How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of

satisfaction with the "Modification Or Termination" section?

Rate this honestly, considering the impacts of 7bi when combined with 6f.

I answered 5 to my understanding, and 2 to my satisfaction.

Do you have any other comments about the "You Control Your Content",

"Warranties And Disclaimers", or "Modification Or Termination" sections?

Consider reiterating the points raised about 6f in the talking points for question 1.

I answered the following:

For the avoidance of doubt, I shall restate part of my answer to question 1.

Clause 6f is of particular concern to me. It essentially gives WOTC the power to, in its sole discretion, revoke this license from anyone. While it may seem that WOTC could be trusted to only use this power to revoke the license from those peddling racism and hatred, the inclusion of the word "obscene" is of particular concern to me. There are many places in the world where "obscene" is used to marginalize minorities. The existence of gay people was argued as inherently sexual and banned from being taught to children in my party of my own country until 2010 (kent, in the UK). This same kind of issue is seen in the backsliding of LGBT rights in the US, and transgender rights in the UK. While the current owners of WOTC may not consider gay and trans people as inherently obscene, I can feel no confidence that if this backsliding continues future owners of the license (be it future directors at Hasbro and WOTC, or if the rights to D&D are sold again as they were by TSR to WOTC) will continue to hold this opinion. In fact, it seems possible that the US may backslide to a point where there are legal provisions made against the LGBT community to the point where Hasbro may be forced to use its powers as outlined in this section to police LGBT friendly content. Not having this power provided within the license would enable creators to feel much safer using it.

Ultimately, hateful content does not have a history of selling well in the TTRPG scene. NuTSR, FATAL, and others are generally widely unsuccessful in staking a large foothold. I do not believe that this kind of content potentially being created under the OGL 1.2 poses a significant threat to WOTC or the D&D brand.

As a transgender, bisexual, polyamorous woman. I hope you can understand the concern I hold about my own existence, and thus the content I create being determined to be "obscene" by a future rights holder of the D&D IP.

How would you rate your understanding and your level of satisfaction with

the Virtual Tabletop Policy? // Do you have any other comments about the Virtual Tabletop Policy?

Guidelines for issues with the policy, and answering these two questions, have been provided by Foundry VTT in a far better form than I would hope to present them here, without simply copying what was said in their post on the matter. I strongly recommend you read that post.

I answered 5 to my understanding, and 1 to my satisfaction. For aditional comments, I wrote the following:

I do not believe attempting to limit the creativity and freedoms of VTTs to innovate in the space is a constructive one. The example given of animations give poor clarity and little clear indication of what is intended. In addition to this, the license itself acknowledges the need to adapt and change with technology through the provisions in 7a to modify sections 5 and 9a. But does not provide the same affordances to innovation and technological change to virtual tabletops.

Have you used the OGL 1.0a or previous version of the OGL to create third

party content?

Answer this honestly. I answered yes.

Do you want to create third party content for Dungeons & Dragons in the

future?

Answer this honestly. I answered no.

Would you be comfortable releasing TTRPG content under the OGL 1.2 as

written?

Answer this honestly. I answered no.

Why do you say that?

Relate your answer to previously discussed talking points. I answered the following:

As a minority, and one who is constantly subjected to attacks of my existence being "obscene", and a danger to children to learn about or be around, and observing an aggressive reduction in the rights and freedoms of others like me being pushed through courts and state legislatures in the US and UK, I would not feel comfortable releasing any material under a license which could, at the sole discretion of WOTC, determine my existence and thus my content to be obscene and to see that licensed revoked. I could not stake my livelihood against this not happening.

That aside, I do not desire to use the OGL 1.2 to release content for Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition or for One D&D. But instead to use it on the large body of work created over the last 20 years which used the OGL 1.0 under the good faith assumption that WOTC was not lying on their FAQ, and that it would be a true open license upon which games entirely unrelated to D&D could be built. A fantastic example of this is a game like Fate Core. This is not possible under the terms of the OGL 1.2, and thus would not be suitable for my usage.

Compared to the OGL 1.0a, do you feel that you would be able to continue

developing content the same way under the proposed OGL 1.2? // Why do you say that?

Answer honestly, I have answered no, with the following explanation:

The content I am creating is expressly not able to be created under the OGL 1.2. It uses open gaming content declared in a previously released OGL 1.0a product, and as the OGL 1.2 is explicitly a license between WOTC and myself, it contains no provisions for me to use this OGL 1.0a open gaming content.

For this reason primarily, it would be impossible for me to develop content under the OGL 1.2 in the same way as under the OGL 1.0a. My only option would be to release under the OGL 1.0a, and fight against the legitimacy of the deauthorization of the OGL 1.0a in court.

How would you rate your interest in using the Content Creator Badge as part

of your third party works? // Do you have any other comments about Content Creator Badget?

Answer this question honestly. I have answered 1, and provided no further comments.

or otherwise)?

Answer with any feedback you do not feel was adequately explained in your previous answers. I responded with the following:

I am glad to see WOTC acting in better faith with the OGL 1.2 than with the OGL 1.1, though it would improve my confidence greatly if you would stop referring to the OGL 1.1 as an "early draft" in future publications. While technically as the license was not released to the public, it was a "draft", many third party publishers have confirmed it was presented to them as essentially final. They felt pressured into signing alternative agreements with WOTC to avoid the harmful terms of the leaked OGL 1.1. I also wish you would stop pretending that the company had any intention to gather community feedback on the OGL 1.1. The only reason we had the opportunity to respond was because of the significant uproar raised by the community over the leaks.

The only way I can see a new license being acceptable, is if it is a true open gaming license, and removes the terms which allow WOTC at its sole discretion to cancel peoples usage of the license arbitrarily. In addition to this the license must contain provisions for using open gaming content from products licensed under the OGL 1.0, and must provide a mechanism for adding new content to the corpus of open gaming content, in order for it to be a legitimate open license.

In all reality, in an ideal world, I would like to see these plans put to rest.

By all means create a new license for those who wish to create content for OneD&D, but do not attempt to claim you can "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0, and allow its continued existence providing third party content and support for third edition, fifth edition, and all the other wonderful games that were built assuming that the OGL 1.0 was an honest and true perpetual, irrevocable, open license.

Author: Lucille L. Blumire

Published: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:40:00 GMT